WTO authorized $1B COOL retaliation

Posted December 8, 2015

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has authorized Canada and Mexico to place tariffs on over $1 billion of American-made goods in retaliation for the country of origin labeling (COOL) law being incompliant with WTO standards, according to an Ag Web article available here. Feedstuffs also published an article available here and Agri-Pulse here.

The WTO has upheld multiple times Canada and Mexico’s claim that the label creates an unfair advantage to U.S. products.

“As I’ve said time and time again, whether you support or oppose COOL, the fact is retaliation is coming,” said Chairman Roberts. “Today, the WTO announced just how much that retaliation will cost the U.S. economy. With the WTO announcement, farmers, ranchers and small businesses will soon be smacked with over $1 billion in tariffs.”  

This announcement is the final step in a WTO dispute that has been ongoing for over seven years. Despite efforts by the USDA to amend the rule, the WTO has repeatedly ruled that the U.S. COOL rule discriminates against imported livestock in violation of our trade agreements, according to Feedstuffs.

The WTO determined that the COOL measure “increases the record-keeping burden from imported livestock entailed by the original COOL measure.” Furthermore, the panel noted that “between 57.7% and 66.7% of beef and between 83.5% and 84.1% of pork muscle cuts consumed in the U.S. convey no consumer information on origin despite imposing an upstream recordkeeping burden on producers and processors that has a detrimental impact on competitive opportunities for imported livestock.”

Prior to the decision, Capitol Hill sources told Agri-Pulse that COOL repeal in the Senate is a likely outcome, but the size of the retaliatory figure would be a factor. Sources have indicated that a repeal provision may be attached to either the omnibus spending bill expected to be debated this week or a customs enforcement bill also expected to be considered before Congress is scheduled to adjourn for the year next week. 

However, National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson said NFU, one of the most ardent supporters of COOL, will “raise hell if any repeal bill or language gets included that falls short of maintaining the integrity of COOL,” according to Agri-Pulse.

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Stabenow proposes voluntary COOL

Posted June 25, 2015

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) released a draft proposal which would remove beef and pork mandatory labeling provisions under Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and put a completely voluntary Product of the U.S. label in its place, according to a Feedstuffs article available here. Agri-Pulse also published an article available here. A recent COOL blog post is available here.

Stabenow said she hopes her proposal offers a pathway forward on COOL following a May World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling which found the United States out of compliance again.

“This proposal offers a viable alternative and I look forward to discussing it at our hearing and with my colleagues in the Senate as we work to come to agreement on a bipartisan solution,” she said.

House Agriculture Mike Conaway, R-Texas, rejected Stabenow's proposal. He said he would continue to insist on full repeal of the law. A voluntary labeling program is OK but only as long as it is run by the industry and not subject to requirements of the law, according to Agri-Pulse.

“If there's teeth in it, if there's requirements in it … we're not going to do that. A voluntary program that's strictly run by the industries, that's fine with me,” he said. 

The North American Meat Institute continues to support his strategy. “The real opinions that count about this bill are those of the Canadian and Mexican governments,” said their president and CEO, Barry Carpenter. “Change that doesn't satisfy our trading partners or the WTO still results in billions in tariffs.”

For more information, a copy of the legislation is available here.

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

House votes to repeal COOL

Posted June 12, 2015

The House of Representatives has voted to repeal country-of-origin labeling (COOL) for beef, pork, and chicken, according to a Food Safety News article available here. Meating Place also published an article available here and Feedstuffs here.

Texas Republican Rep. Michael Conaway’s Country of Origin Labeling Amendments Act of 2015 passed Wednesday by a 300-131 vote.

Conaway introduced the bill on May 18, which was the same day the World Trade Organization rejected a U.S. appeal of its decision that COOL unfairly discriminates against meat imports and gives the advantage to domestic meat products.

The 2002 and 2008 farm bills mandated Country of origin labeling (COOL), and meat processors have been lobbying for the law to be changed ever since. Consumer protection activists and livestock producers have lobbied just as hard to keep the law in place, according to Meating Place.

In response to the House vote, the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) issued a statement calling it "an essential first step."

“Chairman Conaway and Representative Costa have shown incredible leadership in encouraging the U.S. live up to its obligations and abide by World Trade Organization rules,” NAMI President and CEO Barry Carpenter said in the statement. “It's an issue of marketing, and that should be decided in the marketplace. We hope the Senate will move quickly to vote for repeal so the President can sign the bill and put this failed experiment behind us.”

COOL supporters urged the Senate to quickly vote. Peterson said in his closing comments on the House floor that “we feel repeal is not where we’re going to end up or where we should end up.” He said as it heads over to the Senate he hopes there’s a way to work through the ruling without needing retaliation, according to Feedstuffs.

Roberts added, “We can sit here and let this happen. Or we can move. Let’s get a move on.”

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

WTO Rejects Cool Appeal, House Rejects COOL

-->

Posted May 20, 2015

The World Trade Organization (WTO) has rejected a U.S. appeal of its decision that country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on meat unfairly discriminates against meat imports, according to a Food Safety News article available here. Feedstuffs also published an article available here and The Packer here.

The latest U.S. labeling rules require meat sold in grocery stores to indicate the country, or countries, where the animal was born, raised and slaughtered.

According to a WTO report, the labeling rules unfairly discriminate against meat imports and give the advantage to domestic meat products. But the WTO compliance panel also found that the labels do provide U.S. consumers with information on the origin of their food, countering Canada and Mexico’s assertion that the labels do not serve their intended purpose.

Canadian cattle groups urged Canada to seek immediate permission from the WTO to impose billions in retaliatory tariffs on a wide variety of U.S. exports to Canada, according to The Packer.

Produce industry leaders said specialty crop exports to Canada and Mexico could be at risk if Mexico puts in place retaliatory tariffs, but there is no indication that mandatory COOL regulations for fresh fruits and vegetables will change.

A joint statement from Ed Fast, minister of international trade, and Gerry Ritz, minister of agriculture and agri-food, jointly with Ildefonso Guajardo Villarreal, Mexico’s secretary of economy, and Enrique Martínez y Martínez, Mexico’s secretary of agriculture, called on the United States to repeal the COOL legislation, according to Feedstuffs.

“In light of the WTO’s final decision, and due to the fact that this discriminatory measure remains in place, our governments will be seeking authorization from the WTO to take retaliatory measures against U.S. exports,” the statement added. In a separate statement Fast and Ritz said in June 2013 Canada released a proposed list of targeted U.S. imports for retaliatory tariffs and they are now preparing its request to retaliate.

National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson also believes there’s still a future for COOL on meat, according to Food Safety News.

“As we have seen in other disputes, once decisions are handed down, WTO members often work together to find a solution that will work for them,” he said. “In this case, such a solution must involve continuation of a meaningful country-of-origin labeling requirement.”

Update:  The House Agriculture Committee approved H.R. 2393, a bill that would repeal mandatory country of origin labeling requirements (COOL) for beef, pork, and chicken, while leaving intact the requirements for all other covered commodities, according to a Meating Place article available here.

The bill, which amends the Agriculture Marketing Act of 1946, passed the committee by a vote of 38 to 6. A combination of 68 Democrats and Republicans joined Chairman Michael Conaway (R-Texas) in introducing this bipartisan bill.

“We must do all we can to avoid retaliation by Canada and Mexico, and this bill accomplishes that through full repeal of labeling requirements for beef, pork, and chicken,” said Conaway in a statement. “We will continue working to get this to the House floor as quickly as possible to ensure our economy and a vast range of U.S. industries and the men and women who work for them do not suffer any economic implications of retaliation.”

For more information on Country of Origin Labeling, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Rep. Kristi Noem: Congress Will Pass Farm Bill

Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD), member of the House Agriculture Committee, says that Congress will pass a farm bill “in the coming months” according to an article by the Argus Leader, available here.  According the article, Noem indicated that:

“My leadership team has told me that it’s going to happen, because I’ve been pretty ugly with them at different times.”  She continued, “So I’m taking them at their word that they’re going to make sure it gets scheduled and they’re going to make sure we’ve got the votes.” 

The farm bill continues to be a contentious issue in Congress over issues including the nutrition title, farm program payments, and even a catfish inspection program.  For more background on these issues past posts on this blog are available here, here, and here. 

The Senate has had success passing a farm bill, but the road to success has been far more challenging in the House.  In 2012, the House Agriculture Committee passed a farm bill, but it was never brought up for a vote in the House.  The 2012 outcome illustrates the deep divisions on certain issues, which is on only display when the House initially failed to pass a farm bill earlier this year.  Later, the House split the nutrition title from the farm bill that paved a possible path forward for getting a competing bill that could be conferenced with the Senate.  Notably, the House-passed bill would also repeal the 1938 and 1949 permanent laws that have been the backstop to getting previous farm bills across the legislative finish line.  Indications have been that the House will bring up a nutrition-only bill in September, following the August recess, that would cut nutrition programs by about $40 billion.  That said, significant doubts have been expressed about the political viability of that approach.

Senate Advances Fast Track Bill

Posted May 18, 2015

The Senate voted 65-33 to advance a Trade Promotion Authority bill, or Fast Track, opening it to votes on amendments that could last until the Memorial Day recess, according to an Agriculture article available here. USA Today also published an article available here and New York Times here.

“The negotiating process has finally worked,” said Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, one of the Democrats who voted for TPA just two days after his party voted against the measure.

This decision comes two days after Democratic senators blocked it. This legislation would grant the president negotiating freedom to complete an expansive trade accord with 11 nations on the Pacific Rim, setting off a contentious congressional debate on one of President Obama’s top priorities for his remaining time in office, according to The New York Times.

The six-year reauthorization of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), commonly known as "fast track," creates an expedited process to get trade pacts through Congress and is opposed by most congressional Democrats, according to USA Today.

The Senate trade debate is expected to roll into next week. If TPA passes, the House is on track to follow suit in June. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said the bill will be open for amendment, and Democrats are likely to seek additional votes on currency manipulation as well as worker and environmental protections, among other issues.

Farm groups called on Congress to move ahead with fast-track legislation, according to Agriculture.

“For America’s farmers and ranchers to see continued export growth, we must pen deals that knock down trade barriers,” said California Farm Bureau President Paul Wenger. 

For more information on international trade, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Senators Introduce Bill to Ease Ag Sales in Cuba

Posted April 24, 2015

Sens. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., and John Boozman, R-Ark., introduced a bill today that would allow banks to finance agricultural exports sent to Cuba, helping to open up Cuban markets to American farmers and ranchers, according to an Agri-Pulse article available here. National Miami Herald also published an article available here and McClatchy DC here.

“While farmers in North Dakota and all across the country dedicate their lives to feeding folks around the world, we have to make sure our producers have the opportunities they need to get their products to market,” said Heitkamp. “The biggest obstacle in that effort involves private companies and banks not being able to provide credit to export agricultural commodities to Cuba, where these crops are in high demand.”

The bill seeks to remove one of the main barriers to open agricultural trade with Cuba: the prohibition on credit sales. The Agricultural Export Expansion Act, would lift the current ban on private banks and companies from offering credit for agricultural exports to Cuba, according to McClatchy DC.

Overall, Cuba imports more than $2 billion a year in food and agricultural products. The U.S. share of that has been several hundred million dollars in recent years, but it has been trending down and totaled less than $300 million in 2014. Agricultural experts see the potential for U.S. sales to exceed $1.2 billion annually within five years, according to Miami Herald.

The U.S. farm lobby is pushing hard for a full repeal of the trade embargo, and while there is bipartisan support for such a move, it remains very controversial in Congress and experts say a full repeal is very unlikely this Congress.

For more information on international law and organizations, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Syngenta Considering Counterclaims in Corn Biotech Lawsuits

Posted February 17, 2015

Syngenta AG may file counterclaims against some of the 750 plus U.S. grain farmers and exporters who have sued them over sales of biotech corn seed that disrupted trading with China last year, according to an Ag Professional article available here. STL Today also published an article available here and Reuters here.

Syngenta, the world's largest crop chemicals company, is “assessing the scope for potential counterclaims” in response to lawsuits over Agrisure Viptera corn, also known as MIR 162.

Last year, global grain handlers Cargill Inc. and Archer Daniels Midland Co., along with hundreds of farmers, sued Syngenta for damages from China rejecting shipments of U.S. crops that contained Viptera corn, according to STL Today.

At the time, the trait was approved for planting in the United States, but it was not approved for import by China, a major corn buyer.

As of Jan. 28, 762 lawsuits had been filed, according to Syngenta’s SEC filing on Thursday, and the company claims the suits are without merit.

Syngenta counterclaiming is "a lot of puffery," said lawyer Paul Hanly of Simmons Hanly Conroy, which is representing clients suing the seed maker, according to Reuters.

“I'm really hard-pressed to see what the theory would be, other than some sort of disparagement claim,” he said, adding that he believes a disparagement counterclaim would be baseless.

Lawsuits against Syngenta have been consolidated in Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, No 14-md-02591. (Reporting by Tom Polansek; Editing by Paul Simao)

For more information on biotechnology, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Ag Groups Worried Over TPP Finalization Before TPA Enacted

Posted January 28, 2015

U.S. trade officials could finalize the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) in the coming months, according to a Reuters article available here. Farm Futures also published an article available here, Washington Post here, and The Hill here.

The TPA, also referred to as "fast-track," limits Congress' ability to add amendments to key trade deals and allows Congress to take an up-or-down vote these trade deals, according to Farm Futures.

Ag groups are worried that this trade deal will not advance without the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch also expressed concerns about TPP being finalized before enacting TPA, according to The Hill.

"Doing so may lead to doubt as to whether the U.S. could have gotten a better agreement, ultimately eroding support for TPP and jeopardizing its prospects for passage in Congress,” said Hatch.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) both support the push, according to Washington Post.

“This president has earned our distrust, but having said that, I still support TPA,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), an Obama critic and former head of the House Oversight Committee. “I still want to have the trade team be able to go forward and make good offers.”

Hatch also stated that there was not a definite timeline for introducing the TPA bill, but he hoped to move it in February, according to Reuters.

For more information on international trade, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Ag Groups Form Coalition to Lift Cuba Embargo

Posted January 12, 2015

Many U.S. farm groups, including Cargill, CoBank, and American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) have launched the U.S. Agriculture for Coalition for Cuba (USACC), according to an Agriculture article available here. Agri-Pulse also published an article available here and World Poultry here, and AFBF published a statement available here.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, U.S. Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and members of Congress supported nearly thirty organizations to liberalize trade and travel to Cuba.

“Cuba imports about 80 percent of its food,” said Vilsack. “Which means there is significant economic potential for our producers. It's a $1.7 billion market. Our rice growers, our wheat growers, our corn growers, our soy growers, poultry and beef producers, all have opportunities in this new day,” according to Agri-Pulse.

Under current sanctions, U.S. food and agriculture companies can legally export to Cuba, but restrictions put shippers at a competitive disadvantage, while Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and Vietnam are able to take over the market.

Farm Bureau said the coalition would work together with Congress and the President Obama to normalize trade relations between the two nations enabling American businesses access to Cuban markets that are available to other countries, according to AFBF statement.

“Easing financing restrictions on agricultural trade with Cuba will make U.S. farmers and ranchers more competitive in the Cuban market of 11 million consumers,” said AFBF President Bob Stallman.

USACC Members: American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, Corn Refiners Association, Illinois Cuba Working Group, Illinois Soybean Growers, Illinois Farm Bureau, International Dairy Foods Association, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers Association, National Chicken Council, National Corn Growers Association, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Union, National Grain and Feed Association, National Milk Producers Federation, National Oilseed Processors Association, National Sorghum Producers, National Turkey Federation, North American Export Grain Association, North American Meat Institute, Soyfoods Association of North America, US Canola Association, US Dairy Export Council, US Dry Bean Council, US Soybean Export Council, US Wheat Associates, USA Rice Federation, Smithfield Foods, Chicago Foods International, Cargill, and CoBank, according to World Poultry.

For more information on international law and organizations, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

China Approves Syngenta Corn, GMO Trait MIR 162

Posted December 22, 2014

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that Chinese officials have approved imports of Syngenta GMO corn trait MIR 162 and two varieties of biotech soybeans, according to a Farm Futures article available here. The Wall Street Journal also published an article available here, Star Tribune here, and Chicago Tribune here.

The country already has rejected more than 1.2 million tons of U.S. corn since the ban was imposed.

This change could resume stronger corn trade with China after they started rejecting U.S. shipments with any traces of Viptera, according to Star Tribune.

The genetically engineered corn seed, MIR 162, protects corn against damage from more than a dozen insect species.

Syngenta has previously stated that several major corn importing countries other than China approved the seed, because it was commercialized “in full compliance with regulatory and legal requirements.”

Each country has a regulatory system to “gauge the safety and appropriateness" of each product, according to the Chicago Tribune.

"The key would be for us to have greater alignment between our regulatory systems and their regulatory systems. Not that we would dictate what conclusions they would reach, but that we would better synchronize, or time, what we do. The Chinese have been reluctant to do that," said Vilsack.

China does not start the process until the U.S. has completed its process, which could delay a product’s availability "by a matter of years," he said.

Ethanol producers could benefit the most as China’s approval allows for resumed purchases of distillers’ dried grains, a byproduct of ethanol production used for animal feed, according to John Payne, senior market analyst at Daniels Trading. Chinese livestock producers are one of the biggest purchasers of feed, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“The bigger win is in the ethanol [industry],” said Mr. Payne.

For more information on biotechnology, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

 

Russia's Import Ban Helps Local Farms

Posted November 25, 2014

Russia’s ban on western imports of food products has strengthened local, organic farms, according to The New York Times article available here. The Daily Meal also published an article available here and teleSUR here.

Major Russian grocery chains sought out Boris Akimov, the founder of Russia’s farm-to-table movement, desperately seeking immediate supplies.

Akimov and the other 100 farmers associated with LavkaLavka, the organic farm cooperative, produce nowhere near the amounts requested.

“The main thing which the sanctions have already changed is in people’s minds — in government, in business and on the streets, they have started to think more about where their food comes from,” said Mr. Akimov. “If the sanctions give a chance to develop local farmers, to develop sustainable agriculture, it is very good. But I am not sure it will happen.”

Russin citizens have been hit the hardest by the ban with food prices increasing dramatically for consumers and many farmers were left with a surplus of crops, according to The Daily Meal.

Without cheese import from Europe, food producers have been making their own Parmesan, Mozzarella cheese, and Serrano ham, according to teleSUR.

Last month, Prime Minister Dmitri A. Medvedev released a “road map” for agriculture in the country encouraging people to consider local farming.

  

“The aim of our efforts is to increase our own agricultural produce and to reduce Russia’s dependence on food imports,” said Dmitri. However, the map was mostly showed upcoming spaces to watch out for.

Prices for meat and poultry have risen more than 18 percent through October, and dairy products rose by over 15 percent, according to The New York Times.

“Russia cannot provide itself with dairy products, fish, vegetables and other types of food,” said Mikhail Anshakov, the head of the Society for the Protection of Consumer Rights, which calls for food sanctions to be rescinded. “Self-imposed sanctions under these circumstances were madness.”

According to a poll taken at the end of September, 59 percent of Russians believed the sanctions would work to Russia's economic advantage, however; consumers are worried the agriculture sector is not able to produce enough food for the country, according to teleSUR.

For more information on local food systems, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

WTO Ruled in Favor of U.S.

Posted October 15, 2014

India broke several World Trade Organization (WTO) trade rules when it banned imports of American poultry, meat, eggs and live pigs according to an article on the Des Moines Register available here. USA Today also published an article available here and Reuters here.

In 2007, the trade panel struck down an agricultural ban by India to prevent avian influenza from making its way into the country even though the United States has not had a case since 2004.

“India’s ban was thinly veiled protectionism. Free and fair trade, particularly with food, should never be used as a political bargaining chip,” said James Sumner, president of the USA Poultry and Egg Council, and Michael Brown, president of the National Chicken Council, according to Reuters.

India has 60 days to appeal the WTO ruling.

The ruling could increase imports of poultry and eggs from the U.S., even though India could restrict them using other measures including, anti-dumping duties if U.S. exporters tried to sell their products at cheap prices.

David Miller, director of research and commodity services for the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, said the decisions by the Indian government have “hurt U.S. farmers and denied consumers the choice of buying American-made products,” according to

Des Moines Register.

"Iowa and U.S. farmers want a level playing field for international trade and we are confident that the WTO dispute resolution process provides an avenue for that to happen," Miller said. "We want all WTO members to abide by the rules that have been established and to avoid using arbitrary, non-scientific claims to prevent competition."

For more information on international law and organizations, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.